Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  August 22, 2014 7:49pm-8:01pm EDT

7:49 pm
slaughter methods because they believe that they are inhumane. suppose congress enact something like that here. what would cover kosher slaughter house do? >> they would have no recourse whatsoever. they could not even get a day in court. razor clams,. >> i'm not sure they could not. i think if you have a targeted law like that the targeted specific religious practice here, i don't think it is our position they could not make the free exercise plan. and so -- kutcher getting away from the hypothetical. the impetus, humane treatment of animals. no animist religion at all. there was an animus to their religion. we're taking that out of the hypothetical.
7:50 pm
>> said think if it were targeted only at the practices of then i think you would have an issue of whether it is a target of law or not. >> no animal may be slaughtered unless it is stunned first, rendered unconscious before slaughtering. >> in that circumstance you would have, i think, the ability for customers to bring suit. i think you might recognize third-party standing on behalf of the corporation's so that a suit like that could be brought. even if you disagree with me at the threshold and disagree with us with respect to the kind of risks that we think you will be inviting if you holes that for-profit corporations can bring these claims, when you get to the compelling analysis the rights of the employees are at center stage. i think that is the point of critical importance some speaking about this case. frankly, the point that is left on the sidelines by my friends
7:51 pm
on the other side. >> holding in that an exemption applies is not a situation like these courts have recognized exemptions in the past. those have been situations where it is a relationship between the individual and the government. granting the exemption one might result with the government and a and can be. >> to the point that he was making five jewish or muslim butchers. and what your saying is if they choose to work under the corporate fold which is universal, you have to give up on that. the freedom of exercise clause that he would otherwise have. now, look at that where do not think that it matters whether they call themselves a corporation or individuals. i mean, i think that is the question you are being asked.
7:52 pm
i need to know what your response is. >> our think our response is what the court said in part three. once you make a choice to go into the commercial sphere to which you do when you incorporate a for-profit corporation, you are making a choice to live by the rules that govern you and your competitors. even if you disagree with me about that i would like to leave the court with what i think is the most important point here. if this exemption were granted, it would be the first time under the free exercise clause in which this court or any court has held that an employer may be granted an exemption that extinguishes statutory they guaranteed benefits of fundamental importance. lee came to exactly the same conclusion with respect to social security benefits. it was imperative the empty interest protected which is the
7:53 pm
fundamental problem with the position of my friends on the other side. they leave the third party employees entirely on. >> that's okay for not-for-profit corporations with respect to their employees. some of them are pretty big operations. >> we're not drawing a line and an unknown. >> you allow them to make this religious objection. religious nonprofits get an accommodation in which their employees get the accommodation, but we are not trying >> but i don't have to pay for it. you could set it up this way that these people don't have to pay for it. >> as i said a couple of times, they have not asked for that until this morning and read the fundamental point is that you would be a extinguishing statutory guarantee health benefits of fundamental importance to these employees to be that is something that this court has never done and i submit the congress cannot have thought it was authorizing in
7:54 pm
1993. >> thank you. four minutes. >> thank you. just a few points of a bottle. let me start with the abortion conscious cost. tells you something about where congress has drawn the line. historically those provisions have applied to all medical providers including for-profit medical providers as far as the government is concerned that is just converses judgment. congress changed his judgment and said that a for-profit medical provider has to provide an abortion that does not apply. that cannot be what congress had in mind. they also suggested it for kosher market takes the trouble to incorporate than it has no free exercise claims of all. you could go back and read the case. i took it as common ground that all nine justices thought that if the massachusetts law had forced crown kosher to be open on saturday that would be a free exercise plan notwithstanding the incorporation. the second point is these
7:55 pm
restrictive alternatives. the solicitor general points out that it is a little bit different from the free smith law because now you have a less restrictive alternatives. that is not a small difference. that is a major difference and is the easiest way to rule against the government. you have a unique situation where their policy is about a subsidy for government preferred health care item. the question is to pace did the government or a third-party insurer is a perfectly good least restrictive -- >> the start of my question. essentially the same for blood transfusions, non pork products. the government has to play for all of the medical needs that an employer thanks for claims it has a religious exemption to. >> not necessarily. it will depend --
7:56 pm
>> those things are more important. >> the easiest way to distinguish them is that the government has already provided this accommodation for religious employers. >> then makes it -- make exemptions. but we have a million exemptions the creation of the exemption relieve me from paying taxes when i have a sincere religious belief that taxes are immoral? >> i think we have said that taxes are different and not all these tensions are created equal because some undermine the compelling interest. >> isn't there a federal program that pays her vaccines for any children who are not covered by insurance for those vaccines? >> there is, of course. also entitled to and which provides contraception coverage which is another least restrictive alternative. it is not true of every have not suggested that the accommodation provided to religious and
7:57 pm
players like nonprofit hospitals, it is not something i invented at the podium. if you look at page 58 of our brief we specifically state that one of the least restrictive alternatives, the most obvious for the government to pay for the server to the favored contraceptive methods themselves tabulator we say and indeed the government has attempted something like that with respect to certain employees and and we sat the federal register provision where there is the accommodation the. >> claim that filling out the form. you are saying that they would climb an exemption like a churches have already? >> we have not been offered that accommodation, so we have not had to decide what kind of objection if any would make. it is important to recognize that as i understand that litigation the objection is not to the fact of the insurance or provider space for contraception coverage. the debate is about how much complicity there has to be back from the employer in order to trigger that coverage.
7:58 pm
whatever the answer is, presumably you can extend the same thing to my clients. if i could have just one second more than a lead the agency. is tremendously important. congress spoke on. agencies decided to accommodate a subset of a person's protected been made into a choice between what congress has provided and the agency has done the answer is clear. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> oral argument in the supreme court case. joining us again. >> this is a decision to pre justice alito wrote the controlling opinion and ruled in favor of hobby lobby and the companion company conestoga wood specialties that for-profit corporations can be protected under the religious freedom restoration act. >> this decision that really seemed to have some legs, some residence particularly with the
7:59 pm
female justices. does not seem to be a settled issue. >> certainly not. saying in interviews after the decision that it raises some concerns in her mind about whether their court failed to have a proper understanding of 474 the health needs of women. if the administration now has several cases before the supreme court, lost some, one or two. where did things stand? are there more challenge is likely? >> challenges are inevitable. in particular, there are some bubbling of canal that question is a relationship, federal relationship to the state and setting up its exchanges. we should also be looking in the future toward how this position that for-profit corporations have religious right will be applied to other claims by companies. what happens if a company decides that it is inconsistent with its religion to serve
8:00 pm
same-sex couples? that is going to be squarely based on the road. ..


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on